Why can't a non-SLR have equivalent quality?

I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point and
shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want to be
burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size differential
of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to ignore.

For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very small, 12x
optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet when I look at
sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even compared to my Sony
DSC-P200.

When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major market for such
a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and shoot cameras, but
still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't worry about dust on the
sensor!

Advertisements

Prime wrote:
> I've been waiting and wondering when we will see this.
>
> I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point and
> shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want to be
> burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size differential
> of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to ignore.
>
> For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very small, 12x
> optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet when I look at
> sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even compared to my Sony
> DSC-P200.
>
> When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
> equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major market for such
> a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and shoot cameras, but
> still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't worry about dust on the
> sensor!

Larger sensor requires larger, more expensive lenses. The fact is the
current P&S's are good enough for the general public when use under
optimal lighting condition. I wouldn't see the manufacturers want to
sacrifice price and size for the mass market products.

Advertisements

l e o wrote:
> Prime wrote:
>
>> I've been waiting and wondering when we will see this.
>>
>> I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point
>> and shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want
>> to be burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size
>> differential of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to
>> ignore.
>>
>> For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very small,
>> 12x optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet when I
>> look at sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even
>> compared to my Sony DSC-P200.
>>
>> When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
>> equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major market for
>> such a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and shoot
>> cameras, but still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't worry
>> about dust on the sensor!
>
>
> Larger sensor requires larger, more expensive lenses. The fact is the
> current P&S's are good enough for the general public when use under
> optimal lighting condition. I wouldn't see the manufacturers want to
> sacrifice price and size for the mass market products.

When a zlr can have an electronic viewfinder that displays at least
close to the full 8mp at 25fps with no (as in practically zero) delay,
then a large sensor zlr makes sense. I'd buy one. The mirror on an slr
is just an necessary evil - noisy, delicate, destined to fail in the
end, and probably a significant cost component of a dslr.

"Prime" <> wrote in message
news:Xns969CC61C14BDDPrimeFactor@216.196.97.142...
> I've been waiting and wondering when we will see this.
>
> I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point and
> shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want to be
> burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size differential
> of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to ignore.
>
> For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very small, 12x
> optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet when I look at
> sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even compared to my Sony
> DSC-P200.
>
> When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
> equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major market for such
> a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and shoot cameras, but
> still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't worry about dust on the
> sensor!

Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter and
smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally larger and heavier
than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add a lens and that changes
somewhat.

Prime wrote:
> I've been waiting and wondering when we will see this.
>
> I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point
> and shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want
> to be burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size
> differential of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to
> ignore.
>
> For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very
> small, 12x optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet
> when I look at sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even
> compared to my Sony DSC-P200.
>
> When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
> equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major market for
> such a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and shoot
> cameras, but still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't worry
> about dust on the sensor!

As soon was you make a sensor as big as the one in an SLR, all the lenses
need to be as big and heavy as SLR lenses, so any size advantage is gone.
There is one system (the 4/3 system) which has a sensor half the
dimensions of an SLR, but the lenses so far seem to be about the same size
and weight as SLR lenses so, for me, all the potential gain of the system
is gone.

The best P&S performance so far seems to be from the 7MP sensors, although
the 8MP 8.8mm x 6.6mm sensors can be quite good as well. Look for the
largest physical sensor size you can get. I have the FZ5, which I keep at
its lowest ISO, and noise on prints up to 10 x 8 inches simply isn't an
issue.

Skip M wrote:
[]
> Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
> cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter and
> smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally larger and
> heavier than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add a lens and
> that changes somewhat.

Prime wrote:
> I've been waiting and wondering when we will see this.
>
> I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point and
> shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want to be
> burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size differential
> of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to ignore.
>
> For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very small, 12x
> optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet when I look at
> sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even compared to my Sony
> DSC-P200.
>
> When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
> equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major market for such
> a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and shoot cameras, but
> still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't worry about dust on the
> sensor!

I am sure you will see such cameras in the near future, but right now
the sensors are a bit more expensive than will fit into the current
price niche for P*S cameras. Just be patient for another year or so.

> Skip M wrote:
> []
> > Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
> > cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter and
> > smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally larger and
> > heavier than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add a lens and
> > that changes somewhat.

How heavy and expensive is a 350D with a F2.4-3.5 28-140 zoom lens ?

Don't forget that the lens of the 8080 has very little vignetting, which
is not the case with most (D)SLR lenses and the one of the Canon Pro 1
as well.
--

"David J Taylor"
<-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:q4IEe.76115$...
> Skip M wrote:
> []
>> Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
>> cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter and
>> smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally larger and
>> heavier than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add a lens and
>> that changes somewhat.
>
> Canon 350D - 540g
> Panasonic FZ5 - 326g
>
> 540g vs. 326g is marginal? It's 65% heavier. Now add Canon EF 75-300mm
> f4-5.6 USM image stabilised lens: 650g, making 1190g.
>
> It's great that those of us who do not wish to lug 1.2kg around all day
> have the choice of the much lighter system, and that those who want the
> better high-ISO performance have that option as well.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
In terms of ounces, that is 2.5 or so. Not huge in the "I can't carry this
any longer" sense. And that lens makes the Canon a more capable unit than
the FZ. Note that I did say adding a lens changes the equation.
I agree, though, horses for courses...

"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
>> Skip M wrote:
>> []
>> > Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
>> > cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter and
>> > smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally larger and
>> > heavier than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add a lens and
>> > that changes somewhat.
>
> How heavy and expensive is a 350D with a F2.4-3.5 28-140 zoom lens ?
>
> Don't forget that the lens of the 8080 has very little vignetting, which
> is not the case with most (D)SLR lenses and the one of the Canon Pro 1
> as well.

A Canon 350D with a 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM would run about $1400 And the
sensor size, which you, Alfred, always seem to discount, will get you,
overall, better images than the FZ, even without considering the difference
between 5mp and 8mp. The Canon's sensor is 22.2mm x 14.8mm. The Panasonics
checks in at, what, 8mm x 6mm? So the better ISO performance of the Canon
will make up for the slower lens. And that lens won't give you any
vignetting on the APS-C sensor. I've had that lens on a 20D for nearly a
year now, and never seen any evidence of vignetting. I did on the wide end,
wide open, with my film cameras, but, for obvious reasons, that hasn't been
a problem with the digital.
Further, the Canon gives you the option of wider, or longer, lenses, and
faster ones, than the Panasonic can.

Skip M wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote in message
> news:q4IEe.76115$...
>> Skip M wrote:
>> []
>>> Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
>>> cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter
>>> and smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally
>>> larger and heavier than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add
>>> a lens and that changes somewhat.
>>
>> Canon 350D - 540g
>> Panasonic FZ5 - 326g
>>
>> 540g vs. 326g is marginal? It's 65% heavier. Now add Canon EF
>> 75-300mm f4-5.6 USM image stabilised lens: 650g, making 1190g.
>>
>> It's great that those of us who do not wish to lug 1.2kg around all
>> day have the choice of the much lighter system, and that those who
>> want the better high-ISO performance have that option as well.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
> In terms of ounces, that is 2.5 or so. Not huge in the "I can't
> carry this any longer" sense. And that lens makes the Canon a more
> capable unit than the FZ. Note that I did say adding a lens changes
> the equation. I agree, though, horses for courses...

Just for the record, 1.2kg is two and a half 1lb bags of sugar - quite a
lot to have hanging round your neck. Of course, if you /need/ the extra
capability, so be it.

In article <9wNEe.76254$>, David J
Taylor
<-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:
> Just for the record, 1.2kg is two and a half 1lb bags of sugar - quite a
> lot to have hanging round your neck. Of course, if you /need/ the extra
> capability, so be it.

For the next few days I'll have my 10D with Big Ed hanging on my
shoulder. It's no biggie, but then I'm used to packing an electric
Hasselblad around.

In article <240720050901581727%>,
Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:
>In article <9wNEe.76254$>, David J
>Taylor
><-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> Just for the record, 1.2kg is two and a half 1lb bags of sugar - quite a
>> lot to have hanging round your neck. Of course, if you /need/ the extra
>> capability, so be it.
>
>For the next few days I'll have my 10D with Big Ed hanging on my
>shoulder. It's no biggie, but then I'm used to packing an electric
>Hasselblad around.

Last weekend, I did the Snowdon Horseshoe hike/scramble in Wales. 7 miles,
1000 metres of ascent, and much of it needed to be done on all-fours. It was
sunny and hot (pushing 30 Celsius and quite humid). I did the whole thing
with just shy of 10 kilos of large format gear on my back, as well as a
Mamiya 7 medium format for backup. Heavy, but worth it. Ended up taking
this:

In the full-res scan, not only can you see individual people on the top of
the mountain (you can just about make out where they are in the JPEG - the
little dots on the ridge are people), you can also distingish their limbs.

In article <1h07g5s.qee8ds19i7h7fN%0m>, Paul Mitchum
says...
> What lenses are you talking about? I have zero vignetting problems with
> any of my lenses. In fact, the crop factor means that lenses which might
> vignette on film are much less likely to with a DSLR.

The lenses used for the tests in the review sites, which have more or
less big vignetting issues. Here is an example:

Alfred Molon wrote:
>
> In article <1h07g5s.qee8ds19i7h7fN%0m>, Paul Mitchum
> says...
>
> > What lenses are you talking about? I have zero vignetting problems with
> > any of my lenses. In fact, the crop factor means that lenses which might
> > vignette on film are much less likely to with a DSLR.
>
> The lenses used for the tests in the review sites, which have more or
> less big vignetting issues. Here is an example:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page17.asp
> "The EF-S 18 - 55 mm lens did exhibit some visible lens shading at full
> wide angle and maximum aperture"
>
> If you need a lens with a 58mm diameter to have no vignetting with a
> 8.8x6.6 mm sensor, you'll need a lens with roughly twice the diameter to
> have no vignetting issues with an APS sized sensor.
> --
*All* lenses vignette to some degree, specially WA lenses. But it's
moot, since readily available - some even free - software will remove
vignetting, as well as barrel/pincushion distortion, lateral CA, and
other minor defects in digital images. The two problems software cannot
fully handle are detail vs noise, and too much DoF, and that is where
the large-sensor dslr wins hands down.

David J Taylor wrote:
>
> Skip M wrote:
> > "David J Taylor"
> > <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> > wrote in message
> > news:q4IEe.76115$...
> >> Skip M wrote:
> >> []
> >>> Compare the Canon Rebel XT/350D to the Olympus C-8080. Both are 8mp
> >>> cameras, the Canon an SLR, the Oly a ZLR, and the Canon is lighter
> >>> and smaller in a couple of dimensions, and is only marginally
> >>> larger and heavier than the Panasonic you mention. Of course, add
> >>> a lens and that changes somewhat.
> >>
> >> Canon 350D - 540g
> >> Panasonic FZ5 - 326g
> >>
> >> 540g vs. 326g is marginal? It's 65% heavier. Now add Canon EF
> >> 75-300mm f4-5.6 USM image stabilised lens: 650g, making 1190g.
> >>
> >> It's great that those of us who do not wish to lug 1.2kg around all
> >> day have the choice of the much lighter system, and that those who
> >> want the better high-ISO performance have that option as well.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> David
> >>
> > In terms of ounces, that is 2.5 or so. Not huge in the "I can't
> > carry this any longer" sense. And that lens makes the Canon a more
> > capable unit than the FZ. Note that I did say adding a lens changes
> > the equation. I agree, though, horses for courses...
>
> Just for the record, 1.2kg is two and a half 1lb bags of sugar - quite a
> lot to have hanging round your neck. Of course, if you /need/ the extra
> capability, so be it.
>
Or 2½ pounds of lead, or feathers ...

In article <42E41C4F.EA60F70@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D says...
> *All* lenses vignette to some degree, specially WA lenses. But it's
> moot, since readily available - some even free - software will remove
> vignetting, as well as barrel/pincushion distortion, lateral CA, and
> other minor defects in digital images. The two problems software cannot
> fully handle are detail vs noise, and too much DoF, and that is where
> the large-sensor dslr wins hands down.

A problem which software cannot solve is not enough DOF. Too much DOF
can be easily reduced by software, by selectively blurring the
background. As for noise, if you shoot at lowest ISO with a P&S you get
noise levels low enough not to matter in most situations.
--

Alfred Molon <> wrote:
> In article <1h07g5s.qee8ds19i7h7fN%0m>, Paul Mitchum
> says...
> > Alfred Molon <> wrote:
> >
> > > Don't forget that the lens of the 8080 has very little vignetting,
> > > which is not the case with most (D)SLR lenses
> >
> > What lenses are you talking about? I have zero vignetting problems with
> > any of my lenses. In fact, the crop factor means that lenses which might
> > vignette on film are much less likely to with a DSLR.
>
> The lenses used for the tests in the review sites, which have more or less
> big vignetting issues. Here is an example:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page17.asp
> "The EF-S 18 - 55 mm lens did exhibit some visible lens shading at full
> wide angle and maximum aperture"

So a single lens, at full wide-angle and maximum aperture, exhibited
some vignetting (the same issue you say exists with the C-8080), which
somehow to you means that *most* DSLR lenses have vignetting problems
> If you need a lens with a 58mm diameter to have no vignetting with a
> 8.8x6.6 mm sensor, you'll need a lens with roughly twice the diameter to
> have no vignetting issues with an APS sized sensor.

This is true of all formats. The bigger the format, the larger the lens
needed. Unless you're doing pinhole photography... But the point is that
if you use a film lens on a digital SLR, vignetting problems pretty much
get cropped away. And if you use the made-for-digital lenses (with their
smaller image circle), then vignetting *might* be an issue.

I have a friend who has the C-8080 and loves it. I was considering
getting one instead of the *ist DS. But the ability to use older lenses
on the DSLR appealed.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!